You really should read this
The leading article (editorial) in The Times, yesterday:
LET THE MEDIA DO THEIR WORK
If, like Malta-born Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, we believe that the press is an essential ingredient in society, as important as an independent judiciary, then we must all do everything in our power to defend it.
The decision made by the Broadcasting Authority on Tuesday, giving the right to political parties to call the shots in political TV programmes, is a serious blow to the freedom of the press and a grave affront to all those who have had enough of politicians wanting to haunt every corner of their life.
The Broadcasting Authority is there to ensure that “due impartiality is preserved in respect of matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy and that broadcasting facilities and time are fairly apportioned between people belonging to different political parties”.
So can its chairman and board members kindly explain how the above constitutional provision would be violated if Public Broadcasting Services decides to hold a discussion programme, choose a topic and invites participants of its choice?
The Labour Party objected to the person invited by PBS for a chat show and wanted to send somebody else.
It took the matter to the Broadcasting Authority, which opted to take the line of least resistance, not rock the boat and decide that “there is no reason to change the system, which seems to have worked satisfactorily over the past years for all parties”.
Evidently, the parties are more important to this ‘robust’ constitutional body than broadcasting standards, the audience and the State broadcaster put together.
True, we are talking of the State broadcaster here, so it shoulders bigger responsibilities than private TV stations or any other medium. But the broadcasting watchdog should only bark and bite if the State broadcaster breaks the rules.
A station producing a programme, including one of a political nature, has every right to decide on everything, from A to Z, including who to invite. Provided, of course, that the laws are respected and it behaves in an ethical manner.
Political parties have the right too to demand their representatives obtain clearance from them to attend. What they do not have the right to do is impose a guest. And the Broadcasting Authority has no right to interfere in this.
The situation becomes even more baffling when considering what the PBS chairman had to say. He indicated that the matter had been raised with the chairman of the Broadcasting Authority who “showed no objection”.
So, what happened? Did the broadcasting regulator’s chairman change his mind or did the board overrule him?
The bottom line is that the political parties have had it their way again. This was a ‘victory’ for Labour, which, of course, the Nationalist Party and any other party can benefit from.
The people have lost and so has the media. A free press should not only enjoy rights on paper but also in practice, including being able to make its own decisions, unhindered by shackles of any sort, political or otherwise.
This time it was about who could be guest. Next time it might well be the topic chosen, the set, the signature tune and what have you.
This is an attack on the freedom of the press and, again, to quote Lord Judge, an old boy of St Edward’s College, in a country governed by the rule of law, the independence of the press is a constitutional necessity.
17 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
The thin edge of the wedge. Here we go again.
Who do you think will replace Austin Gatt?
Of course the guy at the top “showed no objection”. That’s the Maltese way. Not a yes. Still less a no. But “not a no”.
Self-preservation island.
“Tizzewwigni, Ritienne?”
“Ma nsib l-ebda objezzjoni, Marlon.”
Like two bald men fighting over a comb.
I think there is a different side to this argument and a more fundamental question must be posed. Ethically speaking, if the producers of a TV programme wish to have a political party’s point of view included in their programme, is the invite to be sent to the party, or directly and specifically to a representative of said party?
The last few words of paragraph 9 in the editorial above, are very, very understated, but crucial in this argument.
[Daphne – Of course the invitation isn’t sent to the party. It’s given to the individual. ]
They’ll “let us work”? Really?
Labour insisted to have one person instead of another just to talk on a show. Imagine what they would do if in government, when they believe that an employee in any company should be replaced by someone they believe is better suited, regardless of rules or merit.
How will we able to protect ourselves and our freedoms when even the Broadcasting Authority buckled under the pressures of the Labour Party under a Nationalist Government? How can people even think of voting for Labour?
What is the difference between jam and jelly? Labour doesn’t jelly their dinosaurs up our a**.
What did you expect the writer of that editorial to write ? What this editorial writes is saying, is that the referee of a football match should have the power to tell the coaches of the two teams, which players to choose to represent their team in the match !
One should keep in mind that the BA is compsed of 2 members chosen by the PL and 2 chosen by GonziPn, plus the Chairman who was nominated by Lawrence Gonzi ! So GonziPN surely cannot claim that the BA is biased in favour of the PL. If anything, it would be expected to be biased in favour of GonziPN. But because the Chairman seems to be someone who, when he sees an attempt to manipulate public opinion through well-known presenters on the national TV station, does not allow it, both GonziPN and The Times, unleashed unwarranted criticizm on the BA !
[Daphne – Mr Privitera, your manners are atrocious. Will you please leave some space for other people?]
Does the concept of inviting an individual to a discussion mean anything to you? I suppose not. Being a rabid Laborist, concepts such as individuality and freedom of expression and the press are about as alien to you as the Chinese alphabet.
Does this mean that the recent last minute refusal to send two Labour Party spokesmen to a NET TV programme was related to the fact that the station was ‘selective’ in requesting the presence of the two individuals?
If I remember correctly the host said that he had sent a last minute e-mail to the Party (not the individuals) to which it responded by saying that it had decided to stop the two because the host had changed one of the two on the PN’s side! So now the LP wants to dictate who the NP sends on a TV programme on its own station? Democracy, Labour Party style?
Eddy, you never made much sense, but this time you’ve exceeded expectations.
That’s interesting, insisting who should appear on behalf of the PN.
I bet they’ll insist who’s to be considered worthy of the middle class next.
You ask: “What did you expect the writer of that editorial to write?”
You mean that the editor of a newspaper whose printing presses were burnt to the ground by an MLP mob would be expected to be very careful what he writes?
Can you imagine Lou Bondi, an ex-propaganda secretary of the PN, being given complete free rein to decide who to represent the PL instead of the PL itself !
Lou Bondi has been recorded taking part in GonziPN victory celebrations . How can the BA allow him and other GonziPN acolytes running PBS turn the national broadcaster as GonziPN’s own station !
Eddy Privitera is obviously talking from experience and fears that the government that gave freedom of the airwaves will do what the Labour Party did during the dark ages of Malta when the national and only TV stations that exited were declared to be the tools to indoctrinate and turn every Maltese into a socialist zombie.
Who can forget the national TV station opening with the greeting ‘bonġu Malta socjalista’ following the election result or the cartoon ‘Run Rabbit Run’? Sur Privitera, if you think that the Maltese suffer from dementia I am sorry to disappoint you but you are wrong.
Remember the messages of national unity on the 31st of March?
‘Il-haddiema tat-Telemalta, tal-Enemalta u l-membri tal-metal workers section tal-GWU jawguraw il-paci u l-progress lil poplu Malti u Ghawdxi kollu..”
As Joseph said, we will be ‘one thing’
Mr. Privitera, you really don’t get it, do you?
Why shouldn’t a television host have the liberty to choose the persons he wants to have on his programmes/shows?
Do you understand the gravity of your statements? Why, pray, should Bondi’ not invite anybody HE likes on a show he is investing his life in. Because he is a Nationalist? So what.
Can’t Nazzjonalisti discuss matters with Labour invitees of their choice?
Your logic scares me. You remind me of those ghastly and terrifying 80s. Your comments smack of the mentality that has ruined the lives of so many just a few short years ago.
Frankly, I think The Times editorial has handled the issue superficially. In fact in its last line it mixes up press freedom with press independence. The Broadcasting Authority decision does not really amount to an assault on the freedom of the press but to an assault on PBS and its independence.
PBS works within tighter constraints than other TV stations as it must ensure there is a balance in programmes debating political (and other issues). This is the background to it all.
Through its decision, the Broadcasting Authority has reduced PBS to a mouthpiece of political parties, in that it is political parties who can decide who appears on PBS programmes. The main issue here is not press freedom but that the Broadcasting Authority has put the interests of political parties before everything else, including PBS viewers.
If I was TV presenter on PBS, I would want to choose who attends my programmes not because it is “freedom of the press” but because I need to get audiences – and audiences bring in sponsorship. It is not political parties who pay for the advertising revenue on PBS but advertising companies. As a TV presenter I would want to invite the most colourful, intelligent and, why not, controversial guests on my programme because that brings in audiences which in turn brings revenue. Intelligent, colourful and controversial guests also ensure quality TV programmes.
In its decision, the BA has ignored all of this, seeking to focus on the interests of political parties rather than the viewers. One can understand why this has happened. The BA on its own website describes itself as ” an independent statutory body consisting of a Chairman and four other members appointed by the President of Malta acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister given after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition,” This means that the board members were approved and appointed by the very same parties who go to complain to them on inbalances.
But the issue here is not imbalance but the quality of the services provided by PBS in what is a competitive market. The BA has simply added another constraint to PBS.
Assuming I am getting this right, as the situation now stands, if Lou Bondi wanted to invite Franco Debono on his progamme, does the PN have a veto? Does that mean that it can insist on sending, say, Franco Debono’s nemesis Austin Gatt in his stead?
If I am correct on this, PBS has just been severely neutered.
In my view, political bias in TV and radio programmes should be balanced on a programme by programme basis.
The Maltese view of ‘balance’ is allowing the political parties to have their own TV and radio stations.
If the BA have endorsed this madness, then why are you surprised they carry on with their loony behaviour?
I am only glad they don’t discuss politics in English.